Hesitated to post this as its so simple, but lots of folks seem to be looking for a way to cut small strips with the saw.  This is just a piece of aluminum angle from the Home Disappointment store held onto the MFT extrusions by a couple of bolts that pass through holes drilled in the aluminum.  Easiest way to position it is to place a piece of scrap on the mft, saw a shallow kerf, then measure the desired distance from the kerf.  Once its set up, simply place your workpiece against the new fence and let her rip.  Each piece will be precisely the same width.  And best of all, it cost about $3 and ten minutes worth of labor to make it.

Good catch Eli!  I did have a couple start to travel, but by then the saw was far enough along that I could safely put a finger on the offcut.

I like this one!

Elegant simplicity!  Gotta make the run to get the stuff.

Not sure of the part #, but my LA cost $37 US.  I would think you would need 2 of these to keep the work piece square to the guide rail.

This whole discussion is a great idea.

i have both the MFT 1080 and the 800.  Mostly, i use the 1080 and the guide bar for the 800 remains on the shelf unused.  i have tried several methods for ripping short, narrow strips and this discussion has given some good ideas.  I think that extra guide bar with its flip stop will now be put to good use. 

thanks guys

Tinker

I  was wrong to assume that the longitudinal stop came with the table. Mine did, so it must have been a special promotion. I got my table about 3 years ago. As far as needing 2 stops, I have found that this is not necessary. By keeping the work tight against the horizontal rail, you are assuring squareness (assuming your table is set up properly). The workpiece is not going to move any more than it would with any other kind of cut since the pressure is downward on the rail. The purpose of the longitudinal stop is not to promote squareness, it's just a positioning stop. I also don't like the idea of having the cutoff "trapped" even though the chance of kickback may be low. I guess this comes from the way I have become accustomed to working with my TS over the years.

My order of work would be something like this:

1. First, use some scrap to set up your cut (width).
2. Lift the rail and slide your workpiece up to the longitudinal stop while keeping the workpiece tight to the horizontal rail.
3. Drop the rail and make your cut. I have found that it is not necessary to keep the longitudinal stop in place while making the cut.
4. Go back to step 2 and keep repeating etc. etc. till you've got the number of pieces you need.

Hope this makes sense. As always YMMV.

I did some fooling around today to see how the above idea would work.  I had thought at first the idea of having a fence out in front of the guide rail was a great idea.  Before today, i had experimented with an oposite proceedure using the MFS.

In that method, I set a narrow piece of wood same thickness as what I would be cutting.  That went directly against the guide bar.  This extends a little into open space beyond where the saw blade will go, thus getting cut off by blade with very first cut.  The purpose will be more obvious later.

Next, i placed the squared MFS against that strip of wood. This is place square to the guidebar/strip of wood combination.  The MFS is placed exactly at the distance from rubber edge of guide rail as what i want the ripped strips to be.  (I was able to rip repeatedly at about 3/32nds of an inch in this way)

When i placed the wide board to be cut into thin strips, the uncut board is fully exposed with only the keeper piece under the guide bar.  That thin a strip could create all sorts of havoc if there is no way to keep it contained.  I do not think it would remain stable if it were not contained some how.  that is where that thin strip against the guide bar comes into play. It becomes a stop to prevent slipping or becoming a projectile.  Not very desirable, even tho the direction of flight would be away from operator.  Since the thin strip gets cut at exactly the point of saw cut, it will always be there to contain each cutoff piece. 

I did not run my experiments to see how thin a piece I could work with on the uncut (fingers) side.

I think this method will work better than to keep the dimensioned pieces to the outside of the saw cut.  There is less moving of the guide rail to give enough room for setup each time.  There is always a piece of wood to the outside of the sawblade that is "free", that being the undimensioned piece of wood.  (I did not search, but I think John Lucas used much this same method with some wider cuts in one of his demos.  If so, that is pretty much where I got the idea, I just cut a whole lot thinner than he showed)

I was able to rip 6 pieces exactly equal in thickness. I did not cut any more from the piece of wood, as the uncut piece that remained was still wide enough for a future project.

Using this method, i do not have to figure how to contain the cutoff piece that is outside of the saw blade. For me, i find this to work better.

One of these days, I will get around to attacking the problem of installing pics with a post such as this.

Tinker

Forgive my ignorance,  but could the parallel guide (edge guide) be uses in conjunction with the guide rail?  Seems like this would be another viable alternative, if it can.  (a stop placed at the end of the cut could prevent the kickout?)

Yes? Not sure exactly which pieces parts you're talking about. Try it out, post a pic.

You old coot. Go to bed! 

I was telling Garry to post pics, I wasn't trying to force you to do anything. Now I feel bad.

If I understand correctly, Tinker's suggested technique is the same as was demonstrated to me last year by a Festool factory rep. at a tool show, except that he did not use an MFS.  He simply used a piece of MDF that was the same thickness as his stock to be ripped into narrow strips.  The key to safety of this technique is that the cutoff is trapped under the guide rail with its front end stopped by the MFT fence.  The rep. also demonstrated that it is easy to make a bunch of identical wedges using a scrap of MDF in which the side under the guide rail defines the wedge angle.  All you have to do is cut an acute angle from a scrap of MDF, then position the apex against the fence at the far end of the guide rail.  The wedge to by cut from wider stock will fill that space under the guide rail.

Dave R.

Dave, that's basically what I am doing.  I had been using the angle guide bar as a stop for the most part, but would have to remember to back it off from the edge of the guide rail if i wanted to make a bevel cut.  I can usually find a scrap to use, so i just keep the guide bar back far enough from edge of guide rail that I don't have to worry. 

For cutting rails and styles and other narrow pieces, for the most part, even with bar set back, it is enough to capture the cut off piece and there is no worry.  I have made a few toys for my GS and sometimes parts get ripped pretty small.  that is when I need to use an extra piece of wood to trap the cutoff (actually the piece i want to save) piece.  The weight and non skid feature of the guide plate along with the short wood extension to the under side edge of guide bar all work together hold that saved piece.

I have not done a project where i had to cut a repeatable taper, or make repeatable bevel cuts in this way, but have played around with scraps.  the system works.  What is most important to me is that, even tho it maybe is not as quick as i can do with table saw, I think it is safer.  I do not even try to do such thin pieces on the TS as I find I can do with my ATF 55 on the MFT using the described method.  (I got the basic method from John Lucas's woodshop demos)  In the past, I usually did those tiny pieces on the Band  Saw, but then i had the problem of sanding and had to make jigs to hold the pieces.  With the ATF, I do not need to sand before gluing.

Tinker

Yeah, when it comes to repeat rips with the Festool saws, it really pays to stick with several standard thicknesses for all projects.  When working with sheet goods, this is easy to do.  When working with "solid" wood, if you always plane to thicknesses that correspond to common sheet thicknesses and keep some sheet scraps handy, it really simplifies the "rigging and jigging" involved in many operations that use the guide rails, whether sawing or routing.  Sheets can also be laminated together to make other thicknesses.

Regards,

John

Basically, the reason for using the MFS as I understand it is that it is a perfectly straight edge, and is exactly perpendicular to its adjacent edge.  Therefore, it serves as a square and guide both at the same time.

BTW, there is a reason for doing it this way (with the guide under the guide rail rather than outboard).  The smoothest cut is to the side under the guide rail.  Putting the guide outboard, as Jesse suggested, has the disadvantage of placing the more splintered cut on the keeper side of the workpiece.  Tinker's original way presents the finished piece with two finished edges.

How significant do you think that is?

Steve,

It's a big deal for those of us (like me) who do NOT have a table saw.   Worksite saws like the Bosch, Makita, and Dewalt might work fine, but I don't have one of those either.  Also, some are pretty heavy when set up with a nice stand like the Bosch or Rousseau stands.  That's not a good thing for guys with bad backs.

The "big deal" is that we're trying to leverage our Festool tools as much as possible.  The "outer limits" of Festool tools is still unknown in most cases.   Jesse's simple, elegant solution is a great example of testing those limits.  It combines quick setup, dirt cheap cost, usable accuracy, and max portability into one simple solution.  To me, that's a VERY big deal.

Five years ago (even two years ago), it was common wisdom that everyone MUST have a tablesaw to work with wood.   Now (in 2007), a tablesaw might be the best option for some people in some situations, but it is NOT mandatory for everyone in every situation.   For example, I still read questions on other forums like, "What's the best way of hoisting a full sheet of 3/4" ply on to my tablesaw to cut it down?"  (Talk about being in a rut!)  My response is typically, "You're asking the wrong question!"  The better question is, "What's the best way to break down my sheet goods?"   (A couple sheets of pink foam insulation on the floor or on a low, cheap cutting table can work wonders!)

If you're cutting 50,000 strips of wood per year at a single site, then a tablesaw is probably the best option.   If you're cutting 50 strips of wood at a worksite 3 times a year, then lugging a tablesaw around (even a portable tablesaw) may not be worth it.  Maybe an MFT plus TS55 is a better option.   Frankly, using a $3 piece of aluminum angle for the few times I need to make repeated wood strips seems like a MUCH superior option to me.

Bottom line - If we don't test the limits, we'll never improve our skills and use these tools to their limits.   There is a lot of merit in sticking with the old way of doing something.  However, we don't know whether the old ways are better than the new ways unless we explore the new ways!  THEN, we decide which is best for a given situation.   

Regards,

Dan.